|
Aswad -> RE: Men who dont like Dominant women (10/31/2008 11:38:46 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
It was about a man who gave no outward sign of defiance to her face, but insulted and undermined and bitched about her behind her back--a mealy-mouthed domme-hating coward, in other words.
That such a man is a coward, etc., we can agree on.
Whether it has anything to do with hating dommes, or simply a natural reaction to violation of a non-shared set of unwritten social rules, bears closer examination, in my opinion. Certainly, most women I have spoken to expect men to pick up (or at least understand) some elements of female culture, which implies it is a reasonable request that the favor be returned.
Put it this way: if you approach a wolf with a smile on your face, your intention may be friendly, but in wolf-speak, it is interpreted as a prelude to baring fangs. Accordingly, it will cause a certain reaction, from which we can infer nothing about how wolves feel about humans, only something about what is needed for wolves and humans to communicate and coexist. I try not to expect living beings from other cultures, species, etc., to easily understand what signals I am sending, nor to fault one for receiving them differently from what I intended (admittedly a harder goal to strive for).
Perhaps a similar realization can be useful in dealing with communication and harmonious coexistence between two genders whose cultures have only truly started merging in recent years...
quote:
You're quite welcome. I would appreciate it, however, if you could turn down the swelling chorus of violins.
Better?
quote:
The man described by the OP didn't.
Correct. And from your first paragraph, it appears you concur that it is one of the measures of his quality (or, rather, lack thereof).
quote:
From what I can see, neither do you--you are a male supremacist, are you not?
Emphatically not. I would be insulted if a woman bowed to me on account of my gender.
Male supremacy is an idiotic idea that weak men use to cower behind, and I have no need- or respect- for that.
Either my qualities are sufficient to elicit a submissive response from another human, or they are not, regardless of our respective genders.
Responses will, of course, diverge somewhat during casual contact, as the men who respond in a submissive manner will be more about averting their gaze, giving right of way, and generally behaving in a counter-aggressive manner, while the women who respond in a submissive manner will tend to be about preening, attracting attention, yielding and subtly distancing themselves from other men present. Presumably, this has something to do with sexual compatibility, since I have noticed more of the latter pattern with gay men, and more of the former pattern with lesbian women. Sometimes, the straight women exhibit more of a fear response, which is slightly amusing, as the same ones will tend to "seek shelter" around me when there is an emergency or genuine threat. I will leave it to the qualified gender to speculate as to what that is about, as I just don't know.
As for the other sense of supremacy, I believe in meritocracy, not accident of birth.
quote:
Shouldn't you be teaching that female boss her "proper place" and dragging her around by the hair?
Her proper place is right where she is, in a position she has earned on her own merits.
For that matter, I doubt I could get away with dragging her around by the hair, even if I had an inclination to do so, which I don't.
quote:
Sorry to be blunt, but Gorean rhetoric always makes me throw up into my mouth a little.
You're not the only one. I've probably had to beat such idiots with a virtual stick more often than you have.
quote:
I used the phrase "hostile men", not "hostile man", Aswad--you're not the only man who has responded to this thread, and LaM's post speaks volumes about his need to lash out and demean.
Mea culpa.
quote:
As for you, the pattern I have most often observed in you is simply anti-feminist.
I prefer pro-humanist; i.e. the sense that all humans should be judged on their merits, not on the basis of their gender, creed, race, etc.
That is why, when I meet a qualified woman at work, I am pleased to see the world moving in the right direction. That is also why, when I meet one that's there on quota instead, I am dismayed, because I know that men who are stuck in the past will take her as evidence that their misguided views are correct, and that this will make it harder for her qualified "sisters" to get the recognition and respect they deserve. Every time an employer hires "a nice pair of legs," instead of a qualified, female professional, women lose out, and so do men. I have seen first-hand that women have something to bring to the table, and that a working dynamic between the sexes will significantly improve the quality of the professional and social aspects of a workplace.
quote:
You never fail to rush in and try to muddy the waters or derail the conversation whenever the subject of discrimination, unequal or unfair treatment of women comes up.
I'm sorry for coming across that way; it is not my intention.
Obviously, not being a woman, I can't get the first-person perspective on what the recipient of such treatment experiences, although I can sometimes offer perspectives on what the initiator may or may not be thinking, or the prevalence with which it appears to occur with actual intent (with your level of education, I'm sure you know that we notice a presence more acutely than an absence, so some perception bias is to expected on both sides). I do take the problem seriously, and have done what I can to resolve it when I encounter it in social or professional contexts. There exists a converse one, which I shouldn't bring up in the same context, but sometimes do. But for the most part, I'm simply interested in understanding the perspective I don't have first-hand access to, providing the perspectives I do have first-hand access to, and trying to promote debate in the interest of arriving at shared understanding of both perspectives, or at least what can be done about it. On a notable occasion, I mistook venting for a desire to act.
Perhaps you can offer some advice at more accurately representing such intentions?
quote:
Your overall position appears to be that women are "equal enough", that no problems of equality exist, and that all difficulties along these lines are imagined, fabricated, or deserved because women are just plain deserve it.
That is not my overall position, although I have noted that cultural inertia and the system mechanics phenomenon of spring motion both indicate that the ideal balance will not necessarily be found by continously applying force in a particular direction until the desired point has been arrived at. That there is some lag in the system for things to "settle" at a new operating point.
Also, bear in mind that I speak from a different background.
One of my first sexual experiences was with a woman from our equivalent of the USMC. We deploy women in active service, unlike the US. Up here, women wielded authority in our society at least 800 years ago. In modern times, the most successful prime minister was Gro H. Bruntland, who then moved on to the WHO, and she was the head of the largest party for a very long time. Several slots in the present government are held by women. A number of the major financial and business leaders in our country are women. I have yet to work in a place that did not have at least one woman in an administrative position. I have two female police officers in my immediate family (undercover narc and vice, respectively), one of which is definitely of a dominant persuasion. Prostitutes are not criminalized. There is quite simply no shortage of very visible progress in regard to women's rights and equitable treatment, to the point where it's a big deal whether or not to prematurely replace zebra crossing signs with gender neutral figures.
From what I gather in my conversations with women in the US and here, their situations are different, and the attitudes of men in the two places differ.
As such, it may be helpful to indicate whether a problem is considered general to men, or to US culture.
quote:
This was the basic thrust of your first post to this thread, in my opinion: "some people carry authority well" is just your way of saying "men carry authority well, and they have the right to undermine or defy female authority whenever it disturbs their sense of masculine entitlement".
No. There are certainly women who carry authority well, too. I have met many.
What I said was essentially that, regardless of gender, assuming that formal authority equates to perceived authority is a gotcha, because it happens to contradict a long standing subsurface tradition which may or may not be biological in nature. I also said that men appear to be more aware of this trap. Thus, for a man and a woman who both have the same formal and innate authority, the man currently has a greater chance of realizing that "I cannot extend my authority this far, even if I formally have it, because it will not be credible, which will provoke a negative response."
And I also said women will pick up, and possibly change, those conventions.
Entitlement is an offensive idea to me.
quote:
As to the last--the only complaint I have with you is the substance of your position; your manner doesn't bother me, I just think you're a little long-winded. I contrast this to other male posters who are offensive both in substance AND manner--you're ahead of the game. [;)]
I shall take that as a compliment. And, true, I cannot be accused of brevity. [:D]
Health,
al-Aswad.
P.S.: For whatever it's worth, this exchange has appeared more productive to my eyes than past ones. That's a compliment, too.
|
|
|
|
